Call for signatories for J2

[Doug Holton]

Tim Hochberg wrote:
> I also have a weak preference for 'per' over 'using', FWIW. The 
> shortness of 'per' is one virtue. Another is that, because it's slightly 
> obscure, it may be easier to indoctrinate users that 'per...def' is the 
> correct order, not 'def...per'. For me at least it's 'obvious' that if 
> 'using...def' works then so should 'def...using', which of course it 
> can't. The order is amenable to memorization, but I still anticipate 
> more thinkos of this type from using than from per. On the downside, per 
> may be extremely obscure to those that are neither native speakers of 
> English or one of the romance languages.

Even in common English usage, "per" usually comes in the middle of a
phrase, not the beginning, like "miles per hour" or "Changes were made
to the manuscript per the author's instructions"  (people would more 
commonly use the phrase "according to" rather than "per" there).

None of those uses bare any resemblance to how decorators affect
functions.  "per:" by itself on a line is pretty much meaningless.
Looks more like you misspelled pre.

If people are liking Latin keywords for decorators now, why not "sic"?